the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

FIB says Clinton Not Guilty — Id’s Predicted November Surprise Comes True!!

Posted by Jeff Id on November 6, 2016

Just one post ago. Like Nostradamus.

Hell, I was having fun because for a short time the other day I couldn’t find a different angle as to why Comey would have the FBI working in shifts.  It seemed real enough to be crazy but so is everything else.  Despite the fact that he only had 30,000 emails before and it took months to come to conclusion, with 650,000 emails the FBI reviewed them in a few days.

Comey has decided that Hillary doesn’t deserve charges — better than a pardon and it just happens to have occurred with 2 days left.

hahaha.  My Id is smarter than the FBI.

The shortest investigation in history….AND SOON THE 100% COMPLETE EXONERATION OF CLINTON PER COMEY!

Watch the id..


19 Responses to “FIB says Clinton Not Guilty — Id’s Predicted November Surprise Comes True!!”

  1. Jeff Id said

    since I wrote the post, my prediction of exoneration has come true. Wait for the unconditional praise.

  2. Jeff Id said

    OK folks,

    The climategate emails took months for thousands of us to go through and only Steve McIntyre got to the root of many of the threads.

    They were 1000 emails.

    This fake exoneration is the predicted fake exoneration we all expected if this event came to pass. Expect MANY FIB agents to come forward — AFTER the election.

  3. Joe Crawford said

    Jeff,
    I think it was FOX News that said the FBI was using some program they came up with where they could use it to search the emails for certain junk (implied keywords) and also remove duplicates that matched (I guess) another set of emails. My guess is that’s what they have been using the last couple of days. I see no other way Comey could exonerate her that fast. Of course if that is all they did I’d sure like to see the list of search keywords they used to guarantee her innocence. Don’t think I’d bet tha’ farm on that one.

  4. Another Ian said

    Jeff

    You called it right.

    Will Wikileaks now trump the ace?

  5. You cannot be TRIED twice for the same crime. There is nothing that says you cannot be investigate multiple times. If Hillary wins tomorrow, you will be correct. However, this “surprise” I think came a bit too late.

    • Tony Hansen said

      It is a fascinating game re what is allowed – what is not. After Jan 20 it will be interesting to see if the new DoJ interprets the rules differently to Lynch.

  6. omanuel said

    Thanks, Jeff, for your persistent efforts to expose the truth. Without clear evidence of fraud in the Climategate emails that you brought to light in late Nov 2009, few of us would consider evidence the 2016 Presidential election is a swamp of corruption.

  7. omanuel said

    This swamp will be self-draining if President Trump asks NASA to publicly answer the one question that will forever change society’s attitude toward science and religion, NASA, IS THE SUN A PULSAR?”

    • omanuel said

      Thank you, Jeff, for the key role you played in showing the absurdity of false claims that Earth’s climate is independent of Earth’s heat source!

      Thanks to your courage, the international alliance of crooked scientists and crooked politicians has suffered its first major defeat tonight.

  8. hunter said

    She was not actually exonerated. She was unindicted. And that is very likely not going to remain the case over time.

  9. Frank said

    Jeff: It might help to look at the problem more broadly. You and I think that constant communication by email normal. Executives Hillary’s age adopted email very late, if at all. George W Bush never used email in the White House. Colin Powell tried by personal example to introduce it to top level people at DoS. Rice claimed to rarely use it. Gates did little by email. A few years before Clinton arrived at State, secure email was used by few, if any political appointees.

    When Secretary Clinton joined the DOS, the only secure email facility available to her was on a PC in her office at the State Department. (Wireless devices aren’t secure.) She had never used a PC; her experience with email began only three years earlier with an ordinary Blackberry, introduced when she set up an organization to campaign for President. Once addicted to fairly instantaneous email contact with close aides, it is nearly impossible for a top executive to function without it. The NSA famously adapted a Blackberry for Obama (which required a team of four IT professionals to monitor it around the clock), but no one else in the government has one The heads of the military, CIA, and FBI have a variety of secure communications facilities that accompany them everywhere, but not the SoS. Do you really expect someone like Hillary Clinton – who spends most of her time away from her office and is often out of the country – to do her job without 24/7 email on a smart phone?

    She could have kept in contact over the phone, which might be less secure than email. However, a phone don’t leave records behind of security violations and doesn’t have a server than can be hacked.

    The IT/security department at the DoS knew that Clinton was using a non-government email address, but not location of the server hosting that address. However, their principle concern initially was that Clinton’s Blackberry could be modified to serve as a listening device for foreign governments to spy on meetings. When at the State Department, her Blackberry was supposed to be locked in a safe on a floor where sensitive meetings were not held. The IT/security department knew that they didn’t have adequate communications facilities for their top executives who depended on email, a relatively new problem. My guess is that security rules were not strictly enforced for this reason. Even worse, the IT person from Clinton’s campaign was given a job with State IT, insulating the Clinton insiders from oversight.

    Outside of the secure email facility that was only available in her unused office PC, emails generally don’t come with notations showing that they contain classified information. Anything sent by the CIA, FBI or military on the secure email system is classified until declassified, and the secure system will not forward an email to an email address outside the secure system. Email created outside the secure system usually doesn’t come with notations indicating classification, because such email is never supposed to be sent outside the secure system. Such email is marked classified only after the fact when it might be released to the public (subpoena, FOI, book about experiences, etc.) Nevertheless, Hillary’s secure email was printed by an assistant and confidential subjects were discussed outside the secure system when people were away from the office. Anyone needing an immediate response from Hillary (especially outside office hours) needed to use the non-secure system or interrupt her with a call.

    So, what was Hillary supposed to do the first time sensitive matter arrived in her inbox? Say, never do this again (and cut herself off from information flow)? As it turns out, the first email she received too sensitive to be released to the public came from General Petraus, someone who was an expert in secure communications.

    So, what was Hillary’s INTENT in all of this mess? As a high political appointee and nearly President, the “precise rules” were beneath to her and wouldn’t be vigorously enforced. However, she did NOT want her email to be insecure. I personally think she intended to keep as much of her communications outside the hands of the State Department email archive, where career attorneys would decide what information would be released to Congress and the public by subpoena and FOI. That is why she never used a .gov email address like all other government officials. That would be obstruction of justice if it succeeded, but her personal actions were taken before any subpoenas were issued! Given her paranoia, she probably lied to Congress, but proving such lies amount to perjury (intentional) would be challenging. Like many other top government officials outside the FBI, CIA and military, she discussed sensitive subjects (that could later become classified documents) by email, probably taking some care not to discuss the most sensitive subjects.

    Given the fact that she never personally used secure email, she never had a .gov account, her server was insecure, and she relied heavily on email with her staff; her negligence was probably far exceeded anyone else. Now, if you haven’t, listen to the House hearings with Comey: his introduction, and exchanges with Chaffetz, Gowdy (a former prosecutor) and Cummings (comparison with Petraus prosecution). Is the situation still black-and-white?

    I don’t believe their should be a double standard when deciding who to prosecute, but I think every prosecutor properly takes into account his chances of obtaining a conviction and improperly considers the personal consequences a high-profile failure would have.

    • Jeff Id said

      I’m sorry Frank but you are flatly [snip] wrong.

      It’s absolutely insane to think that she accidentally set up a personal server- which people told her not to do- and then began to receive hundreds of millions of dollars to her personal foundation as secretary of state — while doling out billions of MY dollars to those exact same people contributing to her foundation — and it was by accident. And then she accidentally bit-wiped 30000 of the same emails in direct violation of court preservation order!!! That alone would put us in jail.

      She set the server up to hide the quid pro quo of selling our country to gain personal cash. She needs to go to jail. She was caught red-handed, and even deleted the emails after subpeona. The FEDS have the emails by the way – they won’t admit it but they will not prosecute. Allowing this to proceed as normal politics is the hallmark of the authoritarian, dictatorship, facist democrat party voters. Every one of their favorite buzzwords.

      I actually like you but feed that shit to the dogs because I’m way to smart to listen to it.

      Ducks are ducks.

      I do think that Trump’s decision not to prosecute exceeds his own authority. He needs to hire and let it go. I may have done the same in his situation but all evidence indicates that she is an absolute treasonous crook of the highest order. Even if the Russian Uranium deal WAS in our best interest, the money she took in is beyond the pale. Criminal, treason — execution is likely the fair outcome were the situation properly investigated.

      When that same uranium falls on your children’s heads, you may agree but it has been sold and SHE collected over a hundred million dollars including a half million speech fee by her husband directly afterward, a feat not repeated before or since with these folk.

      That only half of America figured it out is beyond my undrstanding. I’m not a Trump fan but this was literally the easiest election choice I ever made.

    • Jeff Id said

      It is not rational to imagine that only two years ago, Clinton didn’t have enough technical advisers around her to tell her how to handle classified emails and that somehow this situation was accidental.

      Not reasonable.

      Not correct.

      The scam is not that sophisticated that people who care shouldn’t be able to figure it out. The Clinton foundation went to extreme and clear lengths to avoid disclosure of contributors and amounts. Very unusual for a 501C3 of any sort. Most receive contributions into their also fake non-profits directly and report them. I’ve repeatedly considered doing the legwork for others, and may do so in the future but honestly I don’t think people are listening enough for me to waste my time.

  10. Frank said

    Jeff: I tried to focus on the subject of whether Comey and the DOJ should have recommended prosecution for MISHANDLING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, not a bunch of related issues involving the Clintons. This is the only investigation which is currently complete and the one you criticized above. Did the DOJ made the right decision on this one narrow issue?

    Jeff wrote: “She set the server up to hide the quid pro quo of selling our country to gain personal cash. She needs to go to jail. She was caught red-handed, and even deleted the emails after subpeona. The FEDS have the emails by the way – they won’t admit it but they will not prosecute.

    “quid pro quo”: The DOJ has a separate investigation into corruption associated with the Clinton Foundation and whether Hillary was involve in quid pro quo. That investigation is pending. I agree with you that Trump shouldn’t be involve in any decision to end that investigation, but he shouldn’t have made promises about what he would do to his political opponent during the campaign either. The only proper way to avoid all-out war with the Dems is to pardon her or appoint an independent prosecutor.

    “caught red-handed”: Hillary was caught red-handed sending classified information over a non-secure email system, but the DOJ decided not to prosecute. My key point was that DOS didn’t have the facilities for Clinton (or anyone else) to securely email when away from their offices. Therefore top executives who relied on email were forced to discuss sensitive subjects (usually using vague terms) on unsecure systems. Everyone (dozens of people) who sent Hillary emails containing sensitive information is as guilty as she was for receiving that information, adding to it and forwarding it. The fact that a .clintonmail.com address was used rather than a .gov address appears irrelevant to the issue of mishandling.

    “deleted the emails after subpeona” “bit-wiped 30000 of the same emails in direct violation of court preservation order” The DOJ was unable to prove that Clinton obstructed justice when the server was wiped. Soon after the existence of Clinton server became public knowledge, her attorney and long-time advisor, Cheryl Mills, arranged for documents on that server relevant to DOS business to be returned to the DOS and requested that the server then be wiped clean. She did so BEFORE any subpoenas were issued. As a private citizen no longer working for the government, she hired attorneys without appropriate clearance to do this job. Perhaps Mills, but probably not Clinton, could be prosecuted for this breach of security. Any “mistakes” the attorneys made separating DoS email from personal email would not be Clinton’s or Mill’s responsibility and attorney-client privilege may protect the sorting process. ClimateAudit has an account of mistakes made with regard to Abedin’s email. The IT person who did the wiping received immunity and testified that he had received instructions to wipe Clinton’s before subpoenas were issued, but did so at a later date on his own initiative. Perhaps Cheryl Mills could be prosecuted for not taking the actions necessary to preserve Abedin’s email, but proving Clinton was responsible for this mistake seems unlikely.

    Traditionally, you can’t “obstruct justice” before legal authorities have requested your assistance, but Sarbanes-Oxle created the possibility of prosecution for “anticipatory obstruction of justice” after Enron and their accounts began wholesale shredding of documents as the company’s finances rapidly deteriorated. I haven’t heard this possibility discussed. I personally think the whole objective of using a .clintonmail address was to keep Hillary’s email out of the hands of career DoS attorneys responding to subpoenas and FOI, but I can’t prove that.

    “The FEDS have the emails”. If I understand correctly, all unclassified Hillary emails in the possession of the DoS are currently being released in response to FOI, including those sent to others with .gov email accounts that were deleted from her server. The FBI recently discovered a new batch of emails through Weiner, but those are unlikely to add anything to the case about mishandling of sensitive information: Clinton probably didn’t describe in an email her deliberate intent to mishandle sensitive information or write down anything that contradicted her interview with the FBI. Lack of intent and deceit were the two main reasons for choosing not to prosecute. If the new mails didn’t provide any new information on these subjects, additional examples of mishandling weren’t going to change their decision.

    The Uranium story has nothing to do with mishandling secret information. The FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation and uranium may be a key issue.

    I also like you too, Jeff. I commented because you have failed to distinguish between the DOJ’s actions so far and the general stench and on-going investigations associated with the Clintons. The government can only prosecute a case it expects to win in court (beyond a reasonable doubt). At the House hearing with Comey, the Trey Gowdy makes a plausible case for prosecuting Hillary for mishandling secret information. However, he is mostly talking about perjury. He also makes the excellent point that failure to prosecute will allow other political appointees to handle email insecurely or improperly without fear of repercussions. Comey competently argues the other side of the issue. Others make an excellent case that Clinton’s associates were treated too generously. The traditional way to the top (Clinton) is to get lower ranking people (Mills or Abedin) to talk by vigorously pursuing their mistakes. Instead, they were treated with kid gloves by unknown parties in the DOJ. Given the difficulties of prosecuting perjury and qui pro quo corruption, there may be little chance of bringing down the Clintons without cooperation from insiders. However, the McDougles went to jail rather than talk about Whitewater.

    • Jeff Id said

      I don’t know why this got stuck in moderation.

      I’ll let your comment sit for a bit so others can answer first if they like. Your position is indefensible as is hers. She made Enron look helpful and intent is a much lower hurdle than you seem to realize in legal terms.

      I’ll be back! — hehe

  11. Jeff Id said

    The emails have always been about quid pro quo, which is also a crime that the FBI can investigate based on tax reasons. Even a single classified email is enough to indict a regular person, it is shockingly obvious she was guilty of that. The reasons for the servers existence are far more damning. If you are running an international scheme to sell government favors, which the Clintons very clearly were, it is necessary to be able to hide your tracks.

    Now the IT guy claims that he was instructed to delete the emails before the preservation order, understood that the preservation order existed, and still stuck his own neck out to delete the emails after the fact. hmmm. What did he have to lose? Were the emails not problematic, why make the effort to delete them in the face of a legal preservation order? I’ve been in a lawsuit for 6 years with a company, and the judge ordered preservation of the emails. I’ve got active data which was 100% turned over and the now ancient original computers stacked on a pallet and shrink wrapped even though the suit is in the process of completion. Had I deleted emails, I would be in jail. Had I deleted emails in a manner specifically designed such that the FBI couldn’t recover them, well that is intent.

    It’s absolutely obvious why the servers existed, it is also obvious why the emails were deleted, it is also unlikely that the guy simply forgot to do his job before the preservation order and whether he did or not, it was illegal after the order. But the Clinton situation is worse than this. The FBI actually gave the IT dude immunity, which they had no legal reason to do — whatsoever!! They could have prosecuted him quite easily for breaking a preservation order which he was privy to and admitted he knew of. Hell the whole country knew! but he went against the whole thing and somehow came up with an automatic pardon (immunity) and even a story which he could peddle to those sycophants who need something good to believe about the situation. It is very strange to me how humans are so susceptible to belief in unsupportable information.

    While I’m as susceptible to being wrong as anyone else, when shown I’m wrong I change my thinking, others are not as rigid with the facts or as flexible when confronted. There is absolutely overwhelming evidence of massive wrongdoing by the Clintons on a scale which has not been seen in US history. The FBI does NOT typically parse each step of the crime into individual packets such that they can exonerate people in piecemeal fashion. In fact, the opposite is the norm and a grand jury should have been called in this case within days of the first proof of mishandling information.

    The Clintons were then exposed for trying to trade personnel favors to the FBI in exchange for changing the classification of an email.. Hell it’s right there in Wikileaks. The FBI didn’t bite on that one – in writing. The outcome of the fake investigation leaves one wondering just what the FBI did eventually accept! As Trump would tell you, it’s all just a negotiation.

    The foundation and everything else would have rolled into the prosection, as would Obama’s role in the matter, and thus we have again found the crux of the issue. Obama’s legacy tainted by the Clintons, and then we see quite clearly the reason he didn’t like them. They are in it for themselves to the detriment of everyone else including Obama. He knows it, I know it, Trump knows it, and most of the voters know it.

    Yes most of them. I’ve been biting my tongue on the popular vote meme for some time. I’m strongly conservative, a pragmatic libertarian in my mind, but still I wonder if I would bother to get up from my chair to vote in California. I would probably just blog.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: